This is a contribution from Terminology 15:1© 2009. John Benjamins Publishing Company

This electronic file may not be altered in any way.The author(s) of this article is/are permitted to use this PDF file to generate printed copies to be used by way of offprints, for their personal use only.Permission is granted by the publishers to post this file on a closed server which is accessible to members (students and staff) only of the author’s/s’ institute.For any other use of this material prior written permission should be obtained from the publishers or through the Copyright Clearance Center (for USA: www.copyright.com). Please contact rights@benjamins.nl or consult our website: www.benjamins.com

Tables of Contents, abstracts and guidelines are available at www.benjamins.com

John Benjamins Publishing Company

Terminology 15:1 (2009), 88–104. doi 10.1075/term.15.1.05monissn 0929–9971 / e-issn 1569–9994 © John Benjamins Publishing Company

Terminological competence in translation

Silvia Montero Martínez and Pamela Faber Benítez

A Terminology course for Translation students must deal with the role of termi-nology in the translation process from both a theoretical and practical perspec-tive. The objective of such a course is not to train translators as terminologists or documentation professionals, but rather as language mediators whose job is to facilitate interlinguistic communication. Translation students should thus learn how to carry out descriptive terminological work oriented towards producing a suitable target text. This means developing specific strategies as well as learning how to use available resources with a view to producing optimal translations. In this context, a truly effective Terminology course program must be adapted to fit new professional profiles. Such a program would target terminology man-agement against the backdrop of specialized language translation. The specific characteristics of the translation process are what determine the type of termino-logical competence required.

Keywords: terminology training, terminology management, translation, curriculum design

1. Introduction

The study of Terminology1 in translator training should target the use of terms in real life contexts, and situate these specialized knowledge units within the context of dynamic communication processes. When the meaning and usage of termino-logical units are analyzed as they appear in texts, oral discourse, and communica-tion situations, it becomes evident that general language and specialized languages are not so very different. For example, polysemy and synonymy occur quite fre-quently in specialized communication, and generate translation problems. In con-trast, standardization and neologisms, which are crucial issues in many traditional Terminology programs, recede into the background.

An important factor to be taken into account is that translators generally do not have the same level of expert knowledge as text originators and receivers.

© 2009. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved

Terminological competence in translation 89

Consequently, they must learn how to rapidly situate terms within their respec-tive conceptual systems. At the same time, this process should allow translators to increase their knowledge in the specialized domain so that it reaches the threshold that enables them to satisfactorily translate the original text (Faber 2004).

In this respect, the analysis and subsequent structuring of terminology is mo-tivated by the text in which it appears, and is carried out as part of the translation process. In other words, translators frequently find themselves working as ad hoc terminologists and terminographers (Wright and Wright 1997), who must recon-struct bits and pieces of conceptual systems instead of structuring entire special-ized knowledge domains.

As a result, Translation students should acquire knowledge and strategies that will help them carry out this type of terminology work. However, undergraduate Terminology courses in Translation have received very little attention up to the present. Despite the conferences and seminars that have focused on this issue (Gal-lardo and Sánchez 1992, Gallardo 2003), there is a scarcity of bibliography on the best way to teach Terminology. Furthermore, there is no consensus of opinion on the contents of such a course because its objectives and methods have never been clearly defined (Cabré 2000: 42). It is also necessary to examine how to teach Ter-minology for different professional profiles. In the absence of clear ideas regarding Terminology as an academic subject, what generally happens is that professors use teaching models that they have observed, used, and/or experienced during their academic career. Cabré and Estopá (1997) criticize the cloning of traditional teaching methods and strategies in the Terminology classroom.

This article describes a new perspective on teaching Terminology within the context of Translation Studies Degree programs offered in the Spanish university system (Montero and Faber 2008). Course objectives, theoretical contents, practi-cal applications, teaching methodology, and evaluation criteria are all determined by the professional profile that students will ultimately acquire. Course elements are thus oriented towards enabling students to develop terminology management strategies for translation as well as helping them to learn how to use available ter-minological resources with a view to producing high-quality translations.

2. Terminology teaching

Little has been written about how to design and teach a Terminology course for different user profiles. Notable exceptions are Parc (1997), Resche (1997), Soffritti et al. (1997) and more specifically, in the case of Translation Studies, Picht and Acuña Partal (1997), Monterde Rey (2002), Faber and Jiménez Raya (2003), and Fedor de Diego (2003). It is true that Terminology has only recently come into

© 2009. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved

90 Silvia Montero Martínez and Pamela Faber Benítez

its own as a scientific discipline. Cabré et al. (2003) underlines the fact that theo-retical principles and methods in Terminology are still taking shape. For example, in Spain, Terminology was not taken seriously as an academic subject until 1991 when it began to be taught in universities as part of a degree in Translation and Interpreting.

Although international conferences and symposiums on Terminology date from the 1930s (Chueca 1998), they were principally geared to scientists and engineers who were interested in the conceptual structure and standardization of linguistic designations for concepts within their own specialized knowledge domains.

Terminology first appeared in an academic setting at the beginning of the 1970s when Eugen Wüster, an engineer with a clear interest in Information Science, gave a course titled Introduction to the General Terminology Theory and Terminologi-cal Lexicography at the University of Vienna. Wüster established a foundation for working methods and principles for Terminology, with the aim of standardizing scientific language (Cabré 1999). His ideas left an indelible mark on terminologi-cal research, teaching, and practice.

Cabré (2000) underlines the fact that in Spain until the 1990s all Terminology training was carried out by national and regional agencies, each with their own ideas regarding Terminology and terminological work. For example, TermEsp, a subsection of the Centro Superior de Investigaciones Científicas,2 adhered to the Wüsterian guidelines of international organizations such as INFOTERM. In con-trast, regional agencies, such as TERMCAT (Catalonia), UZEI (Basque Country), and SNL (Galicia) preferred the model for terminological work followed in Que-bec, which is more oriented towards terminological standardization in minority languages.

In Spain this type of terminological work was initially used as a model for the course design of the subject Terminology in Translation Studies. Terminology is one of the core materials of this degree, and is offered in the last two years after students have had time to reflect on the language mediation process. This reflec-tion naturally leads to the realization that in order to effectively translate special-ized texts, a translator must be aware of how to identify and resolve terminology problems.

In 1991, the Coloquio Iberoamericano sobre la Enseñanza de la Terminología3 drew up a proposal for a Terminology course design (Gallardo and Sanchez 1992: 294–300), a variant of which is now used in most Spanish universities. Nev-ertheless, its usefulness for translator training is somewhat questionable. For exam-ple, this proposal reflects an excessive influence of Wüster’s General Terminology Theory, which was logically not conceived with translators in mind. Furthermore, there is an imbalance between theory and practice with a significant overload of theory. Over a decade later this same criticism was reflected in the II Coloquio

© 2009. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved

Terminological competence in translation 91

Internacional sobre Enseñanza de la Terminología (Gallardo 2003). Alcina (2003), Cabré et al. (2003), Cámara, (2003) and Gómez (2003) underline the need to re-vise and update this Terminology course design, which seems to prioritize other professional profiles.

Both Terminology and Translation Studies have evolved over the years. Ac-cordingly, the objectives and contents in our proposal are exclusively oriented towards translators, who do not have time to carry out systematic terminology management, but must perform this activity ad hoc. Within the context of transla-tor training, Terminology should be taught as an indispensable instrument in any process of specialized language communication. In this sense, the descriptor or brief guidelines regarding the subject’s contents always seems to fall short because it does not capture the true scope and complexity of the relation between termi-nology and the translation process.

3. Terminological competence in translation

In any analysis of the relation between Terminology and Translation, it is neces-sary to bear in mind that both are conditioned by semantic, pragmatic, contextual, and cultural factors that operate at the level of the source language and target lan-guage (House 2000: 150).

According to Cabré (2000: 73, 74), Translation and Interpreting Studies4 and Terminology are relatively recent academic disciplines despite the fact that they have existed for centuries as applied language activities. Furthermore, both are in-terdisciplinary, and also happen to be convergence points for linguistic, cognitive, and communication sciences. However, they are different because terminology, as the inventory of terms within a specialized domain, is not in itself a type of speech act, but rather an instrument used in specialized communication. Translation pri-marily focuses on the communication process, whereas terminology receives a secondary focus. Terminology is interesting for the translator in the measure that it is part of the message conveyed by a specialized text. As a result, the relationship between Terminology and Translation is asymmetric since terminology has no in-trinsic need to recur to translation. In contrast, translation must use terminology as a means to achieve the interlinguistic transfer of specialized knowledge units (Velasquez 2002: 447).

It goes without saying that the adequacy of the terminology in a text as well as its suitability for the level of specialization determines to a great extent the qual-ity of a translation. This signifies that the translator must successfully deal with terminological problems during the analysis of the source text and the production of the target text. Obstacles to the transmission of specialized knowledge stem

© 2009. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved

92 Silvia Montero Martínez and Pamela Faber Benítez

from the translator’s unfamiliarity with the terminological units, their meaning in discourse, and their possible correspondences in the target language (Rodríguez Camacho 2002: 319, 320; Cabré et al. 2002: 168, 9). The lack of reliable termino-logical resources obliges translators to acquire information management skills and be able to manage terminology ad hoc in order to resolve translation problems. Translators thus need to develop strategies to carry out the following processes:

– the identification and acquisition of specialized concepts activated in dis-course;

– the evaluation, consultation, and elaboration of information resources;– the recognition of interlinguistic correspondences based on concepts in the

specialized knowledge field;– the management of the information and knowledge acquired and its re-use in

future translations.

This set of abilities is part of the terminological subcompetence (Faber 2004), a module of general translation competence. In this regard, Neubert (2000: 9) states that it is not necessary for translators to be experts in the specialized field. What is essential is that they be capable of rapidly acquiring expert knowledge, an ability which includes the processes listed above. The ability to recognize concept systems activated by terms in context does not transform translators into experts within the field, but provides them with the knowledge necessary to facilitate under-standing and succeed in the process of information transfer and communication (Rodríguez Camacho 2002: 311).

Consequently, terminological subcompetence does not refer to the acquisition of a list of terms, but rather to the ability of the translator to acquire the knowledge represented by these terms. According to Izquierdo Aymerich (2003), termino-logical acquisition is a cognitive and linguistic ability that permits the translator to model reality in consonance with cognitive schemas or world views that serve as a reference for each translation. For example, translators should be able to iden-tify the most relevant conceptual relations and their lexical formalizations in the discourse. They should also be able to extract recurrent semantic and syntactic patterns or templates in both languages (Faber and Mairal, forthcoming).

4. Proposal for the acquisiton of terminological competence

Our proposal for a Terminology course for translators is summarized in the fol-lowing descriptor: Acquisition, documentation, and management of specialized lan-guage for translators. The contents, exercises, and activities of the course contrib-ute to the acquisition of terminological competence in translation.

© 2009. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved

Terminological competence in translation 93

4.1 Objectives and contents

The contents of our program (see Annex I) are organized under the following four headings:

1. Introduction to Terminology2. Theory and practice of Terminology3. Terminology applied to Translation4. Terminographic documentation in the Translation process

The first three include a total of seven subdivisions (equivalent to 40 hours), and are divided into 25 teaching units. The fourth and final part of the course on termi-nographic documentation (40 hours) is exclusively devoted to the practical activi-ties implicit in the elaboration of a translation-oriented terminology project. The contents in these four sections are in consonance with the teaching objectives.5

Firstly, it is necessary for students to understand the basic premises of termino-logical work, which may vary according to user needs and profiles. Students are ini-tially provided with an overview of Lexicology and Terminology (units 1, 3–6), and also learn basic concepts pertaining to Lexicography and Terminography (units 7, 8). The distinction between word and term is the basis for a parallel distinction be-tween Lexicology and Terminology, a difference that in many ways is more artificial than real. An overly rigid view of Terminology has often created unnecessary barri-ers between the two disciplines. Both general and specialized language are tools used to control and regulate communication, not only by means of linguistic rules, but also through social conventions, which dictate linguistic behavior in different types of communicative situation (unit 9). The characteristics that differentiate general discourse and specialized discourse go far beyond the dichotomy between word and term. Important variables are topic, user, and context, which make specialized discourse a communication tool that requires its own type of analysis. However, specialized languages also possess many features of general language (Unit 14). This means that there is a constant exchange of units between the two. Specialized language and general language are thus regarded as pragmatic subsets of language (in its widest sense), which encompasses general languages as well as all specialized languages. From this perspective, we propose that word and term (Unit 9) should be treated as different points in a continuum. When we approach the concept of linguistic unit as a graded category, the boundaries between category members such as word and term are fuzzy. The structuring of a specialized domain in dynam-ic or prototypical categories (unit 12) signifies that terms can be located at either a subordinate or superordinate level, while words tend to belong to the basic level of categorization. Both words and terms reflect conceptual structure, and are subject to linguistic as well as non-linguistic rules that govern any act of communication.

© 2009. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved

94 Silvia Montero Martínez and Pamela Faber Benítez

Secondly, students should be aware of the various approaches to Terminology that exist in the world. We thus make a clear distinction between Wüster’s General Terminology Theory (Unit 3) and other proposals that appeared afterwards, such as Communicative Terminology Theory (Cabré 1999) (unit 4), Sociocognitive The-ory of Terminology (Temmerman 2000) (unit 5), and Frame-Based Terminology (Faber et al. 2006, 2007; Faber and Mairal, forthcoming) (unit 6). The reductionism of General Terminology Theory is clearly at odds with the complexity of special-ized knowledge communication in the real world. If Terminology is regarded as an idealized model, based only on prescriptive principles, there is no room for either diversity or variation. Lexical units become static entities that are merely names, unable to account for the knowledge structures and the sociocognitive dimension of communication. Instead, Terminology should be regarded as a discipline that is based on textual variation, and whose objectives are the following:

i. to formally, semantically and functionally describe units that can acquire ter-minological value;

ii. to account for how this value is activated;iii. to explain the relations of these units with other types of sign.

In Translation Studies, terms should be studied as they really occur in texts, and not from the perspective of an idealized conceptual structure determined by orga-nizations that must standardize terminology in specialized domains.

Thirdly, students should be aware that the way terminological work is car-ried out depends on its ultimate purpose. Consequently, in order to better under-stand how to manage terminology in translation (unit 16, 17), a distinction will be made between descriptive and prescriptive terminography (unit 7); between systematic and ad hoc terminography (Unit 8); and between monolingual, bilin-gual, and multilingual terminological management (unit 8). Although terminol-ogy management by translators needs to take into account the prescriptive use of language, the process itself is descriptive and depends on the source text. It is not the job of the translator to standardize terminology, but rather to create seamless texts in which terms are used the same way as experts in the field would use them. Even though it would be desirable for translators to have the time to do more systematic terminographic work, they are generally obliged to reconstruct partial conceptual systems for each translation job. The number of languages involved in terminology work means that there are monolingual, bilingual, and multilingual strategies for terminology management.

Fourthly, students should be acquainted with the phases of term extraction, analysis, and lexical-conceptual representation that comprise the process of termi-nographic documentation (units 18–25). In this sense, students’ ability to apply theoretical and practical knowledge can be assessed by means of exercises and

© 2009. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved

Terminological competence in translation 95

activities as well as the terminology project, in which they will demonstrate what they have learned in relation to different types of translation jobs. The terminology project consists of the following six tasks: (i) outline and description of the charac-teristics of the translation job (units 16, 17); (ii) analysis of the difficulties of the source text and extraction of term candidates (units 10, 12, 14); (iii) study and evaluation of the most useful sources of terminographic documentation (unit 18–21); (iv) compilation and consultation of an ad hoc corpus; (v) organization of lexical and conceptual knowledge (units 22, 23); (vi) elaboration of ten definitions for specialized knowledge units within one of the conceptual categories (units 15, 23). These six tasks reflect our vision of terminographic work as a dynamic process that goes from the beginning of the translation assignment to the production of the final version of the target text. It also includes the evaluation of the translation by the client or receivers. For this reason, the terminological decisions of transla-tors should not be divorced from the social and professional context of the transla-tion assignment. Their role as language mediators requires that they use the most suitable terminology for the knowledge level of the text receivers. Evidently, the communication problems that can arise from an overly rigid and standardized conception of terminology should be avoided at all costs.

From a theoretical viewpoint, this type of terminographic work is in conso-nance with: (i) the Communicative Theory of Terminology (Cabré 1999), which is based on discourse variation as a natural dimension of any speech act; (ii) the Sociocognitive Theory of Terminology (Temmerman 2000) in which concepts do not exist in themselves as isolated entities, but as interrelated elements in texts which make them come alive, and (iii) Frame-based Terminology (Faber et al. 2006, 2007; Faber and Mairal, forthcoming) in which both words and terms are part of the same linguistic reality although they may belong to different cognitive structures or frames.

Regarding the practical part of the course, our concept of the process of termi-nographic documentation includes:

– Ad hoc terminological exercises, which help students to deal with problems generated by terms in texts;

– Exercises pertaining to terminological description because translators must deal with lexical units in discourse, which often do not correspond to stan-dardized terminological forms;

– Semasiological and onomasiological exercises in which students will organize specialized knowledge units either going from term to concept or from con-cept to term;

– Exercises on conceptual structures that go beyond traditional hierarchical re-lations in the partial reconstruction of conceptual systems.

© 2009. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved

96 Silvia Montero Martínez and Pamela Faber Benítez

As a way of successfully dealing with all of these factors in terminographic man-agement, we propose the methodology used in Frame-Based Terminology (Faber et al. 2005, 2006, 2007; Montero 2008), which includes the use of modern ter-minographic tools and resources to organize specialized knowledge in dynamic frames.

4.2 Teaching methodology

Terminology, as an academic subject, is only useful to Translation students in the measure that they can perceive its usefulness within the context of their future professional activity. Accordingly, it is advisable to use a teaching model that transforms the students into the managers of their own learning process (Faber and Jiménez Raya 2003). This entails the progressive integration of new concepts with a view to fomenting learner autonomy so that students actively participate in this process. Such a teaching model should be flexible, open-ended, and based on both individual and group participation. In class, the teacher should encourage discussion and debate, and provide students with opportunities to learn from their mistakes as well as to reaffirm what they have done well. This model is evidently learner-centered, based on cognitive restructuring and autonomous learning (Fe-dor de Diego 2003).

Given the fact that our vision of the world is conditioned by previous experi-ences, knowledge and emotions (Amestoy de Sánchez 2001: 13), the model pro-posed is based on cognitive restructuring, which involves the conscious, deliberate reformulation of processing schemas. In order to produce any sort of conceptual change, it is necessary to:

i. identify and clarify the previous ideas of the students;ii. question these ideas by using counterexamples;iii. introduce new concepts;iv. provide opportunities for students to use new ideas in various types of situa-

tion and confirm their explanatory and predictive power.

These steps involve the use of a series of techniques and activities that reveal to the students what they are unable to discover for themselves. Furthermore, teach-ing strategies should also avoid the presentation of information, and rely more on exercises that encourage the discovery and consolidation of new concepts. Finally, the teacher should foment the progressive learning of procedural knowledge and its application in different situations.

In an effective Terminology course, the constructivist paradigm (Cracolice 2001, Macbeth 2000), which combines aspects of discovery learning (Bruner 1996) and meaningful reception (Ausubel 2000), helps transform conceptual knowledge

© 2009. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved

Terminological competence in translation 97

into mental images, whereas procedural knowledge becomes the capacity to au-tonomously carry out terminographic documentation applied to translation. Thus, it is extremely important that students understand the value, usefulness, and purpose of all exercises, and thus progressively take charge of their own learning process (Faber and Jiménez Raya 2003).

Learner autonomy is very useful in Translation Studies since students should be encouraged to work on their own, and thus become accustomed to finding solutions for problems that arise in the translation process. Within this type of context, the teacher becomes a facilitator of resources and learning (Jiménez Raya 1994).

The teaching methodology proposed evidently depends on activities and ex-ercises that allow students not only to use and contrast the validity of the knowl-edge acquired, but also to deal with new situations where knowledge needs to be adapted. It should encourage students to design problem-solving strategies, and when necessary, improve their knowledge of the documentation process. The teaching materials recommended are the usual bibliographical sources (manuals, monographs, and journal articles), specialized language texts, multimedia texts, terminographic resources in both paper and electronic format (e.g. dictionaries, glossaries, databases), and software applications such as WordSmith Tools®, Multi-Term® and OntoTerm® for lexical and terminological analysis.

4.3 Evaluation

The evaluation process has generally focused on the student. However, students are only one component of a teaching process, whose goal is to achieve permanent changes in their cognitive make-up. These changes are progressively carried out in stages, each of which has its own set of objectives. Consequently, the evaluation process is progressive as well with the following three types of evaluation (Fenwick and Parsons 2000):

i. an initial evaluation with a diagnostic-predictive function in the form of tests, questionnaires, and discussion;

ii. a formative evaluation during the learning process with a view to orienting students and helping them to rectify or reaffirm terminology management strategies. This evaluation can be in the form of questions, dialogue, or tests;

iii. a final evaluation in which the results obtained are assessed and the student is given a final mark.

The positive or negative assessments obtained with each of these methods should be applied to all of the factors that are a part of the teaching process. Students should be aware at all times of their progress and the effectiveness of their strategies. The

© 2009. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved

98 Silvia Montero Martínez and Pamela Faber Benítez

teacher should be able to judge the validity of his objectives, program, and meth-odology.

All of the conceptual, procedural, and attitudinal knowledge taught in the sub-ject of Terminology should be evaluated by means of class work, expositions or presentations. Table 1 shows some of the learning objectives and tools proposed for an initial, formative and final evaluation:

Table 1. Examples of the initial, formative, and final evaluation of the subject of Terminology

Knowledge type

Objective Evaluation tool

Conceptual and attitudinal knowledge

To make students aware of the distinc-tion between word and term

– Elicitation of students’ opinions (initial evaluation)

– Discussion of required reading and oral presentation by teacher (initial/formative evaluation)

Conceptual and attitudinal knowledge

To increase students’ knowledge of General Terminology Theory and new tendencies in Terminology theory

– Discussion of required reading and oral presentation by teacher (initial/formative evaluation)

Conceptual and attitudinal knowledge

To increase students’ awareness of differ-ent types of terminology management

– Discussion of required reading and oral presentation by teacher (initial/formative evaluation)

Procedural and attitudinal knowledge

To help students develop strategies for using and consulting different types of terminographic resources

– Group work on different aspects of terminographic resources

– Terminographic searches– Oral presentation of results in

class (formative evaluation)

Procedural and attitudinal knowledge

To help students develop terminology work methods and management strate-gies regarding the following activities:– description of the translation job and

the specialized knowledge domain;– term extraction;– consultation of terminographic re-

sources;– identification of conceptual categories

and linguistic designations;– elaboration of definitions;– presentation of terminographic work

using OntoTerm®

– Supervised work and final proj-ect deliverable (formative and final evaluation)

© 2009. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved

Terminological competence in translation 99

For example, the evaluation of conceptual categories, such as those related to the dichotomy between word and term, can be evaluated both diagnostically and for-matively through discussion and debate. The final evaluation should measure the students’ capacity to successfully resolve terminological problems that arise in translation work. In this sense the terminographic documentation project that the students will present is of crucial importance.

4.4 Class organization

For the learning process to be successful, it is necessary for the teacher to coher-ently organize the contents and objectives, teaching activities, exercises, materi-als, and evaluation methods. Each teaching unit proposed in the program can be planned according to the template in (1), which exemplifies Unit 18 regarding terminographic resources.

(1) TEMPLATE Objective: To make the student aware of the terminographic resources and systems of terminology management for translation as well as the need to evaluate them.

Phase 1 Introduction and explanation. The teacher gives a concise overview of the standard types of terminographic resources for translators and asks them to examine the advantages and disadvantages of each type. This task is carried out in groups. Each group is assigned a specific type of resource, which they will analyze according to a series of variables.

Phase 2 Group work. Each group makes a list of terminology-related problems that translators must deal with, and proposes a list of solutions for each problem. The information in each resource is analyzed in reference to the range of solutions proposed.

Phase 3 Exposition and discussion of results. The students learn about the different types of terminographic resources through the presentations given, and thus become aware of the wide range of information offered in such resources.

Phase 4 Evaluation of results. The class then reflects on the usefulness of these resources in translation jobs.

This type of class structure encourages the active participation of the students in their own learning process in the context of a goal-directed activity. As a result, students are able to widen their horizons and integrate new knowledge into previ-ous knowledge structures. It prepares them to carry out a terminology project and apply terminology management skills to specific translation jobs.

© 2009. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved

100 Silvia Montero Martínez and Pamela Faber Benítez

5. Conclusion

In order to be able to translate successfully, linguistic mediators should be able to apply theoretical concepts and use skills that are part of a dynamic transla-tion macro-competence, whose nature can vary with the changing demands of the translation market. In this sense one of the factors that contribute to a good translation is terminological subcompetence, which includes processes that range from terminographic search and documentation strategies to the partial recon-struction of specialized knowledge domains. The effective acquisition of termino-logical knowledge and skills by translation students requires:

i. a careful selection of teaching objectives as well as program contents in accor-dance with the professional profile targeted;

ii. teaching methods that make use of suitable techniques and activities;iii. the use of didactic material that contribute to the achievement of the teaching

objectives;iv. the application of evaluation strategies in consonance with the teaching meth-

odology.

Within this teaching context, students are encouraged to become autonomous, and to take charge of their own learning process. The ultimate objective is to en-able them to successfully function in a professional context and to apply concepts and/or terminographic processes in their work. For this reason students should receive training based on Terminology theories that highlight the dynamicity of language as well as terminographic methods that facilitate ad hoc descriptive ter-minology management in the translation of specialized language texts.

Acknowledgments

This research has been carried out within the framework of the MarcoCosta: Marcos de cono-cimiento multilingüe en la gestión integrada de zonas costeras [Multilingual knowledge frames in the integrated management of coastal areas], project number PO6-HUM-01489 funded by the Andalusian Regional Government.

Notes

1. We follow the conventional use of upper case for the theory of Terminology and lower case for terminology as the inventory of terms.

2. The National Research Institute in Spain

© 2009. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved

Terminological competence in translation 101

3. Iberian Colloquium on Terminology Teaching.

4. Research on the terminological necessities of the interpreter is virtually inexistent. Most of the authors cited in this section write about translation; however, the majority of their observa-tions are also applicable to interpreting though there are significant differences between the two contexts. Without a doubt, more research is needed in this area.

5. Montero and Faber (2008) offer guidelines regarding (i) the number of hours necessary to give the program; (ii) course objectives; (iii) teaching methodology, exercises and activities; (iv) evaluation method.

References

Alcina Caudet, A. 2003. “La programación de objetivos didácticos en Terminótica atendiendo a las nuevas herramientas y recursos.” In Gallardo San Salvador, N. (ed.). Terminología y traducción: un bosquejo de su evolución. Actas II Coloquio Internacional sobre Enseñanza de la Terminología. 79–90. Granada: Atrio.

Amestoy de Sánchez, M. 2001. “La investigación sobre el desarrollo y la enseñanza de las habili-dades de pensamiento.” Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa 4(1). http://redie.ens.uabc.mx/vol4no1/contenido-amestoy.htm. Accessed 23 October 2008.

Ausubel, D. A. 2000. The Acquisition and Retention of Knowledge. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Bruner, J. S. 1996. The Culture of Education. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Cabré, M. T. 1999. La Terminología: Representación y comunicación. Elementos para una teoría

de base comunicativa y otros artículos. Barcelona: IULA.Cabré, M. T. 2000. “La enseñanza de la Terminología en España: Problemas y propuestas.” Her-

mèneus 2, 41–94.Cabré, M. T. and R. Estopá. 1997. “Formar en Terminología: una nueva experiencia docente-

Parte I.” TradTerm 4(1), 175–202.Cabré, M. T., R. Estopá, J. Freixa, M. Lorente, and C. Tebé. 2002. “Les necessitats terminològiques

del traductor científic.” In Chabás, J., R. Gaser and J. Rey (eds.). Translating Science. Pro-ceedings 2nd International Conference on Specialized Translation, 28 February – 2 March 2002. Barcelona: PPU. 165–174. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.

Cabré, M. T., R. Estopá, J. Freixa, M. Lorente, J. Marí, and C. Tebé. 2003. “La enseñanza de la Ter-minología en la traducción especializada: Nuevas propuestas para viejos problemas.” In Ga-llardo San Salvador, N. (ed.). Terminología y traducción: un bosquejo de su evolución. Actas II Coloquio Internacional sobre Enseñanza de la Terminología. 177–130. Granada: Atrio.

Cámara, E. 2003. “El papel de la terminología en las asignaturas de traducción especializada científica y técnica.” In Gallardo San Salvador, N. (ed.) Terminología y traducción: un bos-quejo de su evolución. Actas II Coloquio Internacional sobre Enseñanza de la Terminología. 205–212. Granada: Atrio.

Chueca Moncayo, F. 1998. Aproximaciones a la enseñanza de la Terminología en España: El caso específico de la formación de traductores en las Facultades de Traducción e Interpretación. PhD Dissertation. Departamento de Lengua y Literatura Inglesa y Alemana. University of Valladolid, Spain.

Cracolice, M. S. 2001. “Constructivism: A framework used to understand human learning.” Me-diated Learning 2(1), 1–5.

© 2009. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved

102 Silvia Montero Martínez and Pamela Faber Benítez

Faber, P. 2004. “Terminological competence and enhanced knowledge acquisition.” In Fleis-chmann, P.A., J. Schmitt and G. Wotjak (eds.). Translationskompetenz. 479–499. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.

Faber, P. and M. Jiménez Raya. 2003. “Autonomía de aprendizaje en la enseñanza de la Termi-nología.” In Correia, M. (ed.). Terminologia e Indústrias da Língua, Proceedings of the VII Simpósio Ibero-Americano de Terminologia. ILTEC: Lisboa. 359–371. Barcelona: ILTEC.

Faber, P. and R. Mairal. (eds.). Forthcoming. A Cognitive Linguistics View of Terminology and Specialized Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Faber, P., C. Márquez and M. Vega. 2005. “Framing Terminology: A process-oriented approach.” Meta 50(4), CD-ROM.

Faber, P., P. León Araúz, J. A. Prieto Velasco and A. Reimerink. 2007. “Linking images and words: the description of specialized concepts.” International Journal of Lexicography 20, 39–65.

Faber, P., S. Montero Martínez, R. Castro Prieto, J. Senso, J. A. Prieto, P. León Arauz, C. Márquez Linares and M. Vega Expósito. 2006. “Process-oriented terminology management in the domain of coastal engineering.” Terminology 12(2), 189–213.

Fedor de Diego, A. 2003. “Sobre las propiedades metacognitivas y constructivistas de la termi-nología y sus consecuencias didácticas.” In Muñoz Martín, R. (ed.). I AIETI. Actas del I Congreso Internacional de la Asociación Ibérica de Estudios de Traducción e Interpretación. Granada, 12–14 February 2003. 19–31. Granada, Spain.

Fenwick, T. and J. Parsons. 2000. The Art of Evaluation: A Handbook for Educators and Trainers. Toronto: Thompson.

Gallardo San Salvador, N. (ed.). 2003. Terminología y traducción: un bosquejo de su evolución. Actas II Coloquio Internacional sobre Enseñanza de la Terminología. Granada: Atrio.

Gallardo San Salvador, N. and D. Sánchez (eds.). 1992. La enseñanza de la Terminología: Actas del Coloquio Iberoamericano sobre Enseñanza de la Terminología: Seminario sobre programa de los cursos de Terminología en la Licenciatura de Traducción e Interpretación en España. Granada, Spain, June 1991. Granada: Escuela Universitaria de Traductores e Intérpretes.

Gómez Sánchez, A. F. 2003. “La enseñanza de la terminología enfocada a la interpretación.” In Gallardo San Salvador, N. (ed.). Terminología y traducción: un bosquejo de su evolución. Ac-tas II Coloquio Internacional sobre Enseñanza de la Terminología. 131–142. Granada: Atrio.

House, J. 2000. “Consciousness and the strategic use of aids in translation.” In Tirkkonen-Condit, S. and R. Jääskeläinen (eds). Tapping and Mapping the Processes of Translation and Interpret-ing. Outlooks on Empirical Research. 149–162. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Izquierdo Aymerich, M. 2003. “Enseñanza y conocimiento especializado: conocimiento y con-ceptos.” In Cabré, T. (ed.). Terminología y conocimiento especializado. 55–88. Barcelona: IULA, UPF.

Jiménez Raya, M. 1994. “Aprendizaje centrado en el alumno: Desarrollo de la autonomía del aprendiz de lenguas extranjeras.” Didáctica del español como lengua extranjera. 38–52. Ma-drid: Fundación Actilibre.

Macbeth, D. 2000. “On an actual apparatus for conceptual change.” Science Education 84(2), 228–264.

Monterde Rey, A. M. 2002. “Creación de bancos de datos terminológicos con MultiTerm: Una experiencia docente.” In Bravo Utrera, S. (ed.) Estudios de Filología Moderna y Traducción en los inicios del nuevo milenio. 169–201. Las Palmas de Gran Canaria: Departamento de Filología Moderna de la Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria.

© 2009. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved

Terminological competence in translation 103

Montero Martínez, S. 2008. “Tidying up tides: Modelling coastal processes in terminology man-agement.” Translation and Cultural Diversity. Proceedings of the XVIII FIT World Congress. Shanghai, China 4–7 August 2008. CD-ROM. Shanghai: Foreign Languages Press.

Montero Martínez, S. and P. Faber. 2008. Terminología para traductores e intérpretes. Granada: Editorial Tragacanto.

Neubert, A. 2000. “Competence in language, in languages, and in translation.” In Schäffner, C. and B. Adab (eds.). Developing Translation Competence. 3–18. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Parc, F. 1997. “Évolution d’une formation en milieu de travail.” Terminologies Nouvelles: Termi-nologie et formation 17, 35–36.

Picht, H. and C. Acuña Partal. 1997. “Aspects of Terminology Training.” In Wright, S. E. and G. Budin (eds.). Handbook of Terminology Management. Basic Aspects of Terminology Manage-ment. 305–321. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Resche, C. 1997. “Terminologie et phraséologie comparées: un moyen et non une fin pour l’en-seignement dans le secteur Lansad.” Terminologies Nouvelles: Terminologie et formation 17, 37–42.

Rodríguez Camacho, E. 2002. “La Terminología en la formación de un traductor especializado.” In Guerrero Ramos, G. and M. F. Pérez Lagos (eds.). Panorama Actual de la Terminología. 307–326. Granada: Comares.

Soffritti, M., F. Bertaccini and C. Cortesi. 1997. “L’icone dans la fiche terminologique: un nou-veau point de départ?” Terminologies Nouvelles: Terminologie et formation 17, 43–48.

Temmerman, R. 2000. Towards New Ways of Terminology Description: The Sociocognitive-Ap-proach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Velasquez, G. 2002. “La traducción y la terminología en la comunicación bilingüe mediada.” META 47(3). 444–459.

Wright, S. E. and G. Budin (eds.). 1997. Handbook of Terminology Management. Basic Aspects of Terminology Management. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Wright, S. E. and L. D. Wright. 1997. “Terminology management for technical translation.” In Wright, S. E. and G. Budin (eds.). Handbook of Terminology Management. Basic Aspects of Terminology Management. 147–159. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Annex 1. Terminology Course Program

I. Introduction Topic 1: What is Terminology? Unit 1. Views on Terminology Unit 2. Functions and users

II. The theory and practice of Terminology Topic 2: Approaches to Terminology Unit 3. General Terminology Theory Unit 4. Communicative Theory of Terminology Unit 5. Sociocognitive Theory of Terminology Unit 6. Frame-Based Terminology Theory Topic 3: Approaches to terminology work

© 2009. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved

104 Silvia Montero Martínez and Pamela Faber Benítez

Unit 7. Prescriptive and descriptive terminology management Unit 8. Systematic and ad hoc terminology work. Monolingual and multilingual strate-

gies

III. Terminology applied to Translation Topic 4: Basic concepts Unit 9. General and specialized discourse: words and terms Unit 10. Specialized knowledge units Unit 11. Term formation Unit 12. Conceptual categories, concepts, and relations Unit 13. Conceptual systems and multidimensionality Unit 14. Terminological and conceptual variation in specialized discourse Unit 15. Terminographic definition Topic 5: Terminology and the translation process Unit 16. Terminological needs of the translator Unit 17. Terminology in translation Topic 6: Sources of terminology acquisition and documentation Unit 18. Standard terminographic documentation sources Unit 19. Terminographic documentation in Internet Unit 20. The compilation of an ad hoc corpus for terminographic documentation Unit 21. The role of corpora in the translation documentation process Topic 7: Analysis and representation of lexical and conceptual knowledge Unit 22. Structuring lexical and conceptual knowledge Unit 23. The elaboration of terminographic definitions Unit 24. MultiTerm®: standard software application for terminological databases Unit 25. OntoTerm®: software application for terminological knowledge bases

Authors’ addresses

Silvia Montero MartínezFacultad de Traducción e InterpretaciónUniversidad de GranadaC/ Buensuceso, 11Granada 18002, Spain

smontero@ugr.es

Pamela Faber BenítezFacultad de Traducción e InterpretaciónUniversidad de GranadaC/ Buensuceso, 11Granada 18002, Spain

pfaber@ugr.es

About the authors

Silvia Montero Martínez holds a degree in English Language and Literature and a M.A. in Specialized Translation from the University of Valladolid. She has a PhD in Spanish Linguistics. She lectures on Translation and Terminology at the University of Granada. Her main research interests are terminology and scientific translation. Her articles on these subjects have appeared in a number of international and national journals.

Pamela Faber lectures in Terminology and Applied Linguistics at the University of Granada. She holds degrees from the University of North Carolina, the University of Paris IV, and the University of Granada, where she is presently the Chair of the Translation Department. She is the author of various books and articles on lexical semantics, translation and terminology.